SUBHAS SIMON MUNDU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner belongs to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police under the Home Department whose services were placed under the Transport Department on 27.8.2011 vide Annexue-1 issued by the Home Department where under the services of two other persons were also placed under deputation. Thereafter, the Transport Department posted the petitioner as Enforcement Officer for East Singhbhum (Jamshedpur) and West Singhbhum (Chaibasa). He has been repatriated to the Home Department by the notification dated 17.11.2012 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand ( Annexure-4) on administrative grounds. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition as being illegal and arbitrary and also vitiated on account of malafide and colourable exercise of power by the respondent no.3 and 4, who have been impleaded as party by name. The respondent no.4 was earlier noticed and has appeared and filed his counter affidavit. The State- respondent have also appeared and filed their counter affidavit.

(3.) It is the contention of the petitioner that the order of repatriation is not an order simplicitor but is actuated by malafide. In support of his aforesaid contention petitioner has relied upon confidential letter no. 19 of 2012 and 21 of 2012 dated 18.4.2012 and 20.4.2012, Annexure-5 and 6 respectively, issued by him addressed to the Secretary cum Transport Commissioner, Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand. Annexue-5 alleges that the respondent no. 4 who was Commissioner, Kolhan Division had asked the petitioner to arrange for 100 buses or Rs. 4 lakhs in respect of some Government Programme being arranged at Seraikella. It is alleged that the said respondent no.4 threatened the petitioner that his service will be returned from the Transport Department to his parent Home department. The aforesaid authority made unfounded complaint against the petitioner. In the letter at Annexure-6, petitioner has alleged that respondent no.3 Secretary, Transport Department had directed him on 16.4.2012 to release 3 vehicles of M/s Varuna Integrated Logistic Private Ltd. In his letter he has stated that he has seized 62 vehicles in a particular months including 3 vehicles of the said company and has also realized fines from them. He also stated that the prosecution report has been submitted in respect of 3 vehicles in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. Petitioner alleged that if his conduct appears to be motivated against the said company, the same be inquired. At the end petitioner again requested to be repatriated to his parent department. He has also referred to the letter of the District Transport Officer, East Singbhum addressed to the Secretary cum Commissioner, Transport, Jharkhand in respect of seized vehicles of M/s Varuna Integrated Logistic Private Ltd. Letter dated 21.4.2012(Annexure-7) of the District Transport Officer, East Singhbhum states that the said vehicles were seized in exercise of power under Motor Vehicle Act and Rules and fines were levied by the Enforcement Officer. There were 62 vehicles from which fines were realized between the period from 1.4.2012 to 20.4.2012. Therefore, it is submitted that it is not only the vehicle of M/s Varuna Integrated Logistic Private Ltd from whom the fines have been realized but the same has been done in respect of all such vehicles seized. Petitioner has also referred to the letter dated 8.9.2012(Annexure-8), a confidential letter no. 47 issued by him addressed to the Secretary cum Transport Commissioner wherein he has alleged that the Commissioner, Kolhan Division, respondent no.4, in the meeting held on 7.9.2012 in Chaibasa where several other Officers like the Deputy Commissioner, Superintendent of Police, District Transport Officer, Motor Vehicle Inspector as well as other authorities were present had reprimanded and threatened the petitioner. He has therefore made a request for repatriation to his parent department as the concerned officer was exercising undue pressure upon him. Based upon the aforesaid, it is stated that the respondent- Transport Department had maliciously issued the show cause notice upon the petitioner vide order at Annexure-9 dated 18.10.2012 asking him to submit his reply in respect of the comments received from the Commissioner, Kolhan Division that the services of the Enforcement Officer / Enforcement Sub Inspector for the District of East Singhbhum and West Singhbhum region were not found satisfactory. The letter of the Commissioner, Kolhan Division dated 26.4.2012 is also annexed to the said letter. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the said report, the only complaint against the petitioner is that he had been inaccessible on being called through cell phone on one occasion or the other and that the Deputy Commissioner of Seraikella Kharsawan also informed the Commissioner, Kolhan Division to the same effect. It is submitted that the report does not show that there were misdeeds of the petitioner which could have prompted any action to issue show cause notice to him for unsatisfactory service.